Stream: IG creation
Topic: are LOINC Group codes off limits?
Eric Haas (Nov 11 2021 at 20:45):
getting this message
warning The code LG41762-2 is not valid in the system http://loinc.org
Grahame Grieve (Nov 11 2021 at 20:46):
what's a LOING Group code?
Eric Haas (Nov 11 2021 at 20:50):
@Rob Hausam or @Swapna Abhyankar can you help us out here?
Rob Hausam (Nov 11 2021 at 20:51):
There are a number of defined LOINC groups. They're basically there to suggest groupings of LOINC codes that might be considered essentially equivalent for some purposes (e.g, potentially trending in a flow sheet, decision support, etc.). They are identified by 'LG' codes. I worked on them as a contractor when they were first developed.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 11 2021 at 20:52):
tx.fhir.org doesn't load them from LOINC
Rob Hausam (Nov 11 2021 at 20:53):
They're in the standard release. Yes, I thought we still weren't doing that. But probably shouldn't be too difficult to add (I expect).
Eric Haas (Nov 11 2021 at 20:56):
@Rob Hausam what is your opinion on using them as a category code?
Rob Hausam (Nov 11 2021 at 22:46):
@Eric Haas I think the LOINC group codes could be used in 'category', but I'm really not sure if or how much value they would add there. But if people think having them there could be useful, I don't see anything that would argue strongly against that (particularly since you can have multiple categories).
Eric Haas (Nov 12 2021 at 00:23):
OK thanks, we will see how the community responds to it
Swapna Abhyankar (Nov 12 2021 at 01:20):
More info about loinc groups at loinc.org/groups. And FYI- I no longer work for Regenstrief but if you want more information about groups from the content or technical side just submit a question through the website- loinc.org/contact.
Eric Haas (Nov 12 2021 at 05:24):
OK @Rob Hausam @Grahame Grieve I would like to request that they be added to the term server, is that possible prior to ballot?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 12 2021 at 05:25):
it might happen, but I can't commit to it
Rob Hausam (Nov 12 2021 at 12:32):
I might be able to look at it, too (but also can't commit to it).
Vassil Peytchev (Nov 12 2021 at 17:10):
I think the other question is, are we certain the group codes fit in category? At first glance, I think they might be useful as a supplemental code, but only in addition to one of the existing preferred codes (category is 0..*)
John Moehrke (Nov 12 2021 at 17:20):
we did want the these for DocumentReference.category and Composition.category. These today are using a HITSP defined (C80) that was originally derived from the group. -- I think.
http://hl7.org/fhir/valueset-document-classcodes.html
Rob Hausam (Nov 13 2021 at 00:51):
Category codes can be nearly anything (or nothing) that anyone thinks is useful. LOINC group codes are an option (but see my response to Eric above).
Eric Haas (Nov 16 2021 at 03:59):
https://loinc.org/LG41762-2/ is a key concept for new US Core ballot and we really want it supported in the expansions or there is going to be a lot confused readers ( and comments !) Is it possible and less difficult to add a single concept to the term server vs all Group codes?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2021 at 04:47):
Same amount of work to add one or all of them
Robert McClure (Nov 20 2021 at 02:04):
LG codes are valid codes and could be useful as a category code. That said, As I understand it they are a bit experimental and may change in the future.
Eric Haas (Nov 20 2021 at 02:40):
Kudos to @Rob Hausam to attempt to get them in prior to ballot. Otherwise we are going to have lots of pink note to balloters in valuesets and a lots of explaining to do at FMG.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 20 2021 at 02:58):
that won't need lots of explaining, though there is plenty else in US core that will
Eric Haas (Nov 20 2021 at 03:34):
Like in previous versions, most of the issues revolve around terminology... I look forward to the discussion :-)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
